Wal-Mart

A New Low for Wal-Mart: Telling Workers How to Vote

Today marks a new low for Wal-Mart. No, not low prices; low and dirty anti-worker tactics. We’ve known for years that Wal-Mart has violated labor and anti-discrimination laws and ruthlessly fought efforts by its workers to form unions.

And now, according to The Wall Street Journal, Wal-Mart is so intimidated by the very possibility of a unionized workforce that its supervisors have been holding mandatory meetings essentially telling employees to vote against Democrats and Sen. Barack Obama this November.  

Wal-Mart is taking this outrageous step because the Democrats and Barack Obama have committed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act to restore workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain for fair wages, health care, decent working conditions and a real voice on the job. All of America’s workers have the right to freely decide whom to vote for independent of employer pressure and intimidation.

Tell Wal-Mart to stop intimidating workers TODAY!

Wal-Mart’s reported actions are just one piece of a large and well-organized effort by corporate America to continue exploiting America’s workers by preventing them from forming unions. With our economy struggling and workers’ wages stagnant, it is critical that we fight workplace intimidation and other heavy-handed corporate tactics. CEOs and Big Business already have too much influence in our political system and telling their employees whom to vote for is simply unacceptable.

Corporate giants like Wal-Mart have been suppressing workers’ wages and passing along health care costs to hardworking taxpayers like you for years. Wal-Mart executives are getting rich, while we’re being left behind. They understand what is at stake in this election, and so do we—a real voice at work for:

• Fair pay;
• Health care for all;
• Equal treatment;
• Safe workplaces; and
• A secure retirement.

And Wal-Mart is ready to use its incredible corporate power as America’s largest private employer to corrupt the political system to safeguard its profits.

Tell Wal-Mart you reject its unfair and immoral workplace intimidation.

Thanks for your support.

In solidarity,

Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO

P.S. Once you’ve signed our petition, please forward this e-mail wide and far to all your co-workers, family and friends who may be interested. For more on Wal-Mart’s workplace intimidation, check out the AFL-CIO Now blog and our friends at Americans Rights At Work.

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her what's going on because it will just upset her."

By Randi Kaye
CNN
 

On April 5th, the WakeUpWalMart.com campaign will celebrate three years of making Wal-Mart a more responsible company. As you know, it's been a grueling fight for substantive change at Wal-Mart. And, for all of the movement's success, we still have one question for you.

Your tax dollars are still subsidizing Wal-Mart's health care crisis. Your good jobs are still being shipped overseas so Wal-Mart can import over 70% of its goods from communist China. Your neighbors are still earning poverty-level Wal-Mart wages so America's richest family can line their pockets with Wal-Mart's $12 billion in profits.

This year, we can't settle for anything less than real change from Wal-Mart. We know change won't come unless we work together to bring our campaign's message to new audiences in new ways. That's why we're launching the first in a series of new WakeUpWalMart.com videos: "Living Better." Please, do your part and pass it along.

Consider this a taste of the year to come. In the coming months, you will see a series of bold new videos from WakeUpWaIMart.com, all with one mission--to introduce consumers to the real Wal-Mart.

Remember, we can't do that without your help. Supporters like you are the driving force behind the movement to change Wal-Mart. So, check out the video, and help us spread the word. Your action and our message can force Wal-Mart to change, and help forge a better America.

Leaving thousands of families and children without company health care

• Wal-Mart fails to provide company health care to over 775,000 workers and their families. In fact, nearly lout of every 2 children of Wal-Mart workers are either uninsured or on public health care.

Costing taxpayers billions of dollars

• Wal-Mart costs taxpayers as much as $1.4 billion a year, and is projected to cost $9.1 billion over the next five years, because so many Wal-Mart workers and their families are forced onto public health care.

Discriminating against women

• Over 2 million women are suing Wal-Mart for gender discrimination. It's the largest discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history.

Violating child labor laws

• Wal-Mart has broken child labor laws again and again. In fact, Wal-Mart refuses to adopt a zero tolerance policy to make sure children aren't exploited. For example, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $135,540 to settle child labor violation charges in January 2005 for allegedly breaking child labor laws in 24 incidents in Connecticut.

Paying poverty-level wages

• Wal-Mart continues to pay poverty-level wages, forcing many of its workers to rely on public assistance programs. Wal-Mart admits its jobs are not designed to support a family.

Exploiting undocumented workers

• In March 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle federal allegations it used undocumented workers to clean its stores. Many of the janitors -from Mexico, Russia, Mongolia, Poland and a host of other nations -worked seven days or nights per week without overtime pay or injury compensation. Those who worked nights were often locked in the store until the morning - the workers described it as "virtual slavery" (Law.com, "Class Action Against Wal-Mart Picks Up," 2005).

Negatively impacting our communities

• Studies in Iowa have shown that some small towns lose up to 47% of their retail trade after 10 years of a Wal-Mart store moving in nearby. Another recent study showed that when Wal-Mart moves into a community wages decline by 5% for all workers, not just retail.

What you can do

1. Sign-Up

Join our exciting movement to change Wal-Mart:

www.wakeupwalmart.com

2. Adopt-A-Store

Become a local volunteer and help us build a local community group at every Wal-Mart store in America. Community groups meet once per month to take action to educate others about Wal-Mart's negative impact on our communities.

3. Tell Others

Call your friends and family and let them know why Wal-Mart needs to change and ask them to sign up.

Stop The Wal-Mart Bank

Until the loophole allowing for ILCs is closed for good, corporations like Wal-Mart will continue to pose a threat to America's banking industry. Senator Chris Dodd has proposed a piece of legislation that will patch the defect in our banking policy, but the bill is bogged down in a partisan debate. Unless we all act now, the bill may not even make it to the floor for a vote.

We need your help in getting this vital legislation through the Senate. Write your Senators today and tell them to take a stand for sound banking policy. Together, we can keep Wal-Mart out of the American banking industry.

Stop the Wal-Mart Bank: Write a letter to your Senators today

Wal-Mart already has a history of unfair financial dealings. Last November, Wal-Mart de Mexico opened the first of a string of in-store Wal-Mart banks. Today, those branches prey on poor and under-served customers, offering predatory loans with outrageous 75% interest rates.

In America, Wal-Mart pushes credit cards that downplay absurd 25% APRs and pre-paid Visas chock-full of hidden fees. In 2006, while Wal-Mart pursued an American ILC, it went so far as to lie under oath while giving testimony to FDIC regulators.

Clearly, the facts speak for themselves. We can't allow an irresponsible corporation like Wal-Mart to threaten our nation's banking industry. Please, take action today—tell your Senators to take a stand for consumers and for responsible banking.

Write your Senators in support of Senator Dodd's bill

Big-box stores are not a form of economic development. A newly constructed super- store cannot increase the amount of money that local residents have to spend. As a result, sales gains at these stores are invariably mirrored by an equivalent drop in revenue at existing businesses.

Fewer Retail jobs

As these businesses are forced to down- size or close, the resulting job losses typically equal or exceed the number of new jobs created by the big-box store. This was recently shown in a large-scale study con- ducted by researchers at the Public Policy Institute of California. The study examined 3,094 counties across the U.S., tracking the arrival of Wal-Mart stores between 1977 and 2002.

The study found that the opening of a Wal-Mart store led to a net loss of 180 retail jobs on average, suggesting that each Wal-Mart employee replaces approximately 1.5 workers at other stores. (David Neumark, Junfu Zhang, and Stephen Ciccarella, "The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets," working paper, Public Policy Institute of California, April 2006)

Although similar studies have not been done of other big-box retailers, they likely also have a negative impact on employment, because the underlying dynamics (i.e., no increase in consumer spending) are the same.

Working Poverty

In their drive to cut costs, big-box chains are pushing down wages for retail workers. A national study found that, in counties that are part of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (which account for nearly 85% of the U.S. population), every additional Wal-Mart store that opens reduces total earnings for retail workers by 1.3%. (Arindrajit Dube, Barry Eidlin, and Bill Lester, "Impact of Wal-Mart Growth on Earnings through-out the Retail Sector in Urban and Rural Counties," Institute of Industrial Relations Working Paper Series, 2005)

180 Jobs Lost:

Net Impact When Wal-Mart Opens

Many big-box employees, even those who work full-time, do not earn enough to meet basic living expenses. Many also lack health insurance as they are not eligible for or cannot afford the company plan. At Wal-Mart, for example, full-time employees must wait six months and part-timers one year to qualify, leaving almost 40 per- cent of the company's workforce ineligible. Of those who are eligible, about one-third do not enroll, in many cases because of the high out-of-pocket cost.

Instead, large numbers of big-box employees rely on Medicaid, food stamps, and other public assistance programs to get by. Several states have reported that their Medicaid rolls are now swollen with superstore workers. In 2005, for example, Massachusetts disclosed that some 9,500 Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Target employees and dependents were receiving publicly-funded health care at an annual cost to taxpayers of over $12 million.

Perhaps most disturbing, researchers at Penn State University, after controlling for other factors that influence poverty, found that counties that gained Wal-Mart stores during the I 990s fared worse in terms of family poverty rates than those that did not. (Stephan Goetz and Hema Swamina- than, "Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty," Penn State University, Oct. 2004.)

Trading independent retailers for big-box chains weakens the local economy. This is because local stores recycle a much larger share of their sales revenue back into the local economy, while chains siphon most of the dollars spent at their stores out of the community, funneling them back to corporate headquarters or to distant suppliers.

The added economic benefit of local stores has been dubbed the "local premium...’ Several studies have quantified it.

One was conducted in Chicago's Andersonville neighborhood by the firm Civic Economics. The study analyzed ten locally owned restaurants, retail stores, and service providers and compared them with ten national chains competing in the same categories. The study found that spending $100 at one of the neighborhood's independent businesses created $68 in additional local economic activity, while spending $100 at a chain produced only $43 worth of local impact. The difference was due to four factors:

Local Payroll - The locally owned businesses spent a larger share of their revenue on local labor (29 vs. 23 percent), be- cause they carried out all management functions on-site, rather than at corporate headquarters.

Procurement - The local retailers spent more than twice as much buying goods and services from other local businesses. They banked locally; hired local accountants, attorneys, designers, and other professionals; advertised in local media; and sourced inventory from local firms.

Profits - Because their owners live in the area, a larger portion of the local retailers' profits stayed within the local economy.

Charitable giving - The local retailers donated more on average to local charities and community organizations than the chains did.

Added dollars circulating in the local economy translate into a larger number and wider variety of available jobs.

The implications of the local premium for how cities approach economic development are significant. Not only do big-box stores eliminate more retail jobs than they create (see our fact-sheet, Impact of Big- Box Stores on Existing jobs), but they reduce local economic activity and job creation in other sectors. Conversely, expanding local businesses generates substantially greater economic benefits.